Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alek Tarkowski
dblp:89/8211
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational social science and digital humanities
AI governance |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Position: Standardization of Behavioral Use Clauses is Necessary for the Adoption of Responsible Licensing of AI · ICML 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
quantitative analysis · 1.5qualitative interviews · 1.5clustering · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Position: Standardization of Behavioral Use Clauses is Necessary for the Adoption of Responsible Licensing of AIabstractGrowing concerns over negligent or malicious uses of AI have increased the appetite for tools that help manage the risks of the technology. In 2018, licenses with behaviorial-use clauses (commonly referred to as Responsible AI Licenses) were proposed to give developers a framework for releasing AI assets while specifying their users to mitigate negative applications. As of the end of 2023, on the order of 40,000 software and model repositories have adopted responsible AI licenses licenses. Notable models licensed with behavioral use clauses include BLOOM (language) and LLaMA2 (language), Stable Diffusion (image), and GRID (robotics). This paper explores why and how these licenses have been adopted, and why and how they have been adapted to fit particular use cases. We use a mixed-methods methodology of qualitative interviews, clustering of license clauses, and quantitative analysis of license adoption. Based on this evidence we take the position that responsible AI licenses need standardization to avoid confusing users or diluting their impact. At the same time, customization of behavioral restrictions is also appropriate in some contexts (e.g., medical domains). We advocate for “standardized customization” that can meet users’ needs and can be supported via tooling. Daniel McDuff, Tim Korjakow, Scott Cambo, Jesse Josua Benjamin, Jenny Lee, Yacine Jernite, Carlos Muñoz Ferrandis, Aaron Gokaslan, Alek Tarkowski, Joseph Lindley, A. Feder Cooper, Danish Contractor |
ICML | 9 |